Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

461–470 of 612 posts

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#461

Post by peab »

vel0city wrote: post #407
peab wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable. But I don't understand those who protest the presence of ICE as a concept. Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws?

> Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws? I don't think there are many developed countries where their immigration officers are routinely tear gassing students and bystanders, no. I don't think there are many developed countries where their immigration officers are detaining indigenous peoples in private, for-profit detention centers without charging them with any kind of crime. Feel free t…

Hm, you seem to be replying to an argument that I did not make. this seems to fall under:

> I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#462

Post by timeon »

peab wrote: post #194
njovin wrote: post #138

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't know if it's fair to say we're chilling - there have been fairly organized (although admittedly not very large) protests around the nation related to the killing of Nicole Renee Good. I live in southern California and there were at least 6 within easy driving distance this past weekend. Whenever ICE goes into a new city, they're meeting more and more community resistance. The protestors have mostly been very…

I understand protesting ICE for better accountability, they certainly need to be held accountable. But I don't understand those who protest the presence of ICE as a concept. Are there any countries that don't enforce their immigration laws?

Original concept is dead when they are used as militia against states that did not vote for current administration.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#463

Post by xdennis »

rendaw wrote: post #424
perihelions wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "So in this case the government is raiding the home of someone who did not commit any crime, in the hopes of getting at people who might have." That's unequivocally a lawful basis for a court-ordered search warrant. They must have probable cause that the person being searched has evidence of a crime; not necessarily that the search target and the criminal suspect are one and the same. Search is investigative; not p…

I agree that's what GP wrote, but I think GP's point is that it's not illegal for journalists to have classified documents, so it does not qualify as probable cause.

> it's not illegal for journalists to have classified documents, so it does not qualify as probable cause

It's amazing how many people offer free internet advice off of ideological groupthink rather than actual laws.

This raid was authorized by a warrant. Do you really think a judge doesn't know the law, but you do?

If a crime happens in your neighborhood, and you have a camera, the cops could get a warrant to search your footage. It doesn't mean you committed a crime, it just means you can be compelled to provide information pertaining to an investigation.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#464

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

mesk wrote: post #225

Or as some 'uknown' VP would say: We will protect freedom of speech until the last journalist is behind the bars. That is the price we are willing to pay.

Are you referencing something? I can’t find any utterances of this phrase or something similar to it. Sounds juicy though.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#465

Post by avensec »

mickle00 wrote: post #449

fuck this -- how is this not on the front page of HN?

It is the most commented on and has the highest points today. See: https://hckrnews.com/ . Another user pointed me to it in the past when I was also frustrated that an obviously engaged story was somehow being buried for reasons I didn't understand.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#466

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

g947o wrote: post #393
DFHippie wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Jeff is actively abetting this.

Wouldn't it be easier to just fire the journalist, like what he did with the editorial?

Define “easier”? I see no opposition to this action that would punish or prevent future similar actions. Now you don’t have to play whack-a-mole with other ideological dissenters because they’ll fear for their safety.

Journalists have always shown great tenacity when it comes to reporting news even if it jeopardizes their employment, but if it jeopardizes their safety… that’s perhaps one level too far for many journalists.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#467

Post by JumpCrisscross »

shermantanktop wrote: post #366
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> One final resolution is the guillotine Did you miss the lesson from the actual guillotine? It’s just another escalation in the cycle. The parties switch from raiding to guillotining each other. The guillotine doesn’t solve the problem, it just raises the stakes.

Sure. Final resolution for that leader, in any case. But in the cycles of history, those events are almost always inflection points where something new happens. For the Terror, that lasted a while, but then we got Napoleon, which was definitely a new chapter.

> in the cycles of history, those events are almost always inflection points where something new happens

Guillotines have historically been a time for the elites to consolidate wealth and power (with some shuffling among them). The poor and middle class eat shit.

(The only exceptions to the first part to my knowledge being the o.g., and only the o.g., communist revolutions in Russia and China. Still shit for the poor and middle class. But the elites fully rotated.)

> For the Terror, that lasted a while, but then we got Napoleon, which was definitely a new chapter

Sure. One which involved shuffling between Bourbons and an imperial Napoleon. The Congress of Vienna brought peace to Europe until WWI. But to the extent the French Revolution benefited ordinary people, it was in Britain and America.

Being temporally proximate to a guillotining is precedentedly fine. Being physically proximate to it is pretty much shit unless you're already powerful (or lucky enough to land a seat in the new oligarchy).

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#468

Post by ActorNightly »

munk-a wrote: post #439
ActorNightly wrote: post #408

Earlier quoted context omitted.

wrong amendment

If we need to fall back on that one it's going to suck. It isn't going to be glorious or something to celebrate being a part of - it's going to absolutely suck to live through and where we end up at the far end is very much up to chance @see myanmar.

>that one it's going to suck.

Absolutely, but you can't make someone believe that things like trans athletes, DEI, multi race populations, and whatever else are all extremely minor things compared to how good your life is, until that good life goes away. Its exactly the same thing as with all the anti vaxxers who were dying on respirators saying that they were wrong and begging people to take the vaccine. Everyone needs a reality check.

And on the other side of the isle, people need to realize that is not just political opinions, some people are truly just evil.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#469

Post by hopelite »

belorn wrote: post #299
snowwrestler wrote: post #88

To clarify why it’s aggressive: federal employees have a legal duty to secure classified information, but everyone else does not. Reporters are not federal employees and it’s not illegal for them to have or discuss classified materials. Most of what Snowden leaked was classified, and remains classified to this day , but you and I can read about it on Wikipedia. The government pursued Snowden because he was legally ob…

This is not a comment about if journalists homes should be more sacred than other people. Some countries do give journalists extra legal protection against this, but I do not know US law in this regard. To my understanding, a US search warrant authorize law enforcement officers to search a particular location and seize specific items. The requirements are: 1# filled in good faith by a law enforcement officer 2# Have…

> Some countries do give journalists extra legal protection against this, but I do not know US law in this regard.

Something worth noting at least for pedantic purposes, since practice is quite different; technically speaking every person has the same rights and laws to follow as a journalist. Fundamentally, there are really no differences between a journalist and a regular person engaging in the same activities.

It's an indication of the unique system architecture that differentiates the USA from all other societies on the planet.

It has been attacked, infiltrated, poison pilled, and really rather devastated in especially the last 100 years, but it is still standing, for better or worse, whether it can be restored or it just needs to die in order to give others a chance to rebuild something improved on the core characteristics of the Constitution.

Re: FBI raids Washington Post reporter's home

#470

Post by datsci_est_2015 »

SV_BubbleTime wrote: post #149
Hikikomori wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not really overreach if they get a warrant and find the things they were looking for.

[flagged]

Are you referring to the defense’s assertion that even though great care was taken by the FBI to ensure that no individual file would move from one box to another, the ordering within an individual box was not preserved and constituted a “spoilation” of the evidence?

Or are you referring to something else that I’m not yet aware of?

Edit with an article link, to set a standard for the quality of discourse: https://thehill.com/policy/national-security/4648830-mar-a-l...

Post reply on HN